President Bush appealed to the nation to stay the course in Iraq on Tuesday in a nationally televised speech that was nationally televised only when the Big Three Networks made a last minute decision to carry his comments live. Reaction was fascinating in both its scope and its idiocy.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi immediately accused the president of "exploiting 9-11" which, she informed the nation, had nothing to do with the war in Iraq.

According to Rep. Pelosi (who is actually allowed to participate in making important homeland security decisions)

"The president's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 show the weakness of his arguments. He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9-11, knowing that there is no connection between 9-11 and the war in Iraq. Iraq is now what it was not when the war began  a magnet for terrorism  because the president invaded Iraq with no idea of what it would take to secure the country after Baghdad fell. The insurgency took root in the unstable conditions that have now existed in substantial parts of Iraq for far too long.

No connection with the war in Iraq? Somebody should nudge her and inform her that the war in Iraq isn't a war against Iraq  it is a war against the terrorists who planned and executed 9-11.

It just happens that the war is being fought in Iraq, but I suppose that is much too deep a distinction for her to grasp. Our forces aren't fighting against Iraq. Al-Qaida is fighting against Iraq. Our forces are fighting against al-Qaida in Iraq.

Her second complaint is that Iraq is now what it wasn't when the war to remove Saddam Hussein began. This is just too rich! Of course it isn't. Before that, it was a dictatorship where the government dropped people into tree shredders feet-first for failing to amuse Uday Hussein or forgetting to kiss Saddam's armpit when greeting him.

Now it has a representative government, an independent judiciary and is no longer a threat to anybody except terrorists. Which brings us to part two of Rep. Pelosi's second complaint. Now it is a "magnet for terrorism because the president invaded Iraq ..."

Evidently, Rep. Pelosi thinks that is a bad thing for America. Where would she prefer to locate the "terrorist magnet"? New York? Washington? Los Angeles? I thought that was the strategy  fight them in the Middle East instead of fighting them in the Midwest? Maybe I am missing something about the nuances of politics.

The insurgency "took root" in the unstable conditions of post-war Iraq? How could that have been avoided? Well, we could have nuked Baghdad. Then there wouldn't be any "insurgents"  which is a catch-all phrase that includes remnants of the Bathist regime and thousands of foreign al-Qaida fighters (who, if they were not attacking American military forces in Iraq, would have resumed attacking American civilians in the homeland).

American forces are protected with Kevlar vests and helmets, armed with great, big guns, are supported by radar, unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, heavy weapons, helicopters and fighters, and are trained for exactly this eventuality.

American civilians at home have been disarmed by the government, fly in unprotected commercial aircraft and are protected by business suits and briefcases, and aren't even supported by the liberals in Congress. This is a rebuttal?

Maybe I am missing something. If al-Qaida has concentrated its forces in Iraq, doesn't that limit its ability to concentrate its forces elsewhere? Like Philadelphia? And if al-Qaida is bound and determined to bring war to Americans, isn't it a good idea for them to run into the U.S. Marines instead of a civilian office building?

What has she been smoking?

Hal Lindsey is the best-selling author of 20 books, including "Late Great Planet Earth."> He writes this weekly column exclusively for WorldNetDaily. Be sure to visit his website where he provides up-to-the-minute analysis of today's world events in the light of ancient prophecies.

Why aren't these empty suits and empty dresses humiliated by their own profound IGNORANCE? Pelosi should join Patty Murray somewhere in the Yukon for an extended stay. Senator Murray (D. WA.) is the genius who went around lecturing school children about the reasons for which America was attacked on 9/11, if you recall.

"Osama Bin Laden built roads, hospitals and day care centers. We (USA) didn't do that." Such benighted ignorance on the part of a public official doesn't say a whole lot for the IQs of Washington State voters. Ditto for Pelosi in California.

Does someone have a photo of Nancy Pelosi with a tin foil hat on?!........please?!

Pelosi ignoramus ping! ------ Pelosi, a hard committed socialist (Progressive Caucus) is even more stupid than she is an extremist. She, like the rest of the extreme libs, have no plan, no ideas, no suggestions, no NOTHING except to criticize Bush -- that is the agenda of the irrelevant Dems. They don't even make an effort to come up with a "better idea" --- and it shows what they are about -- again, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but their own empowerment.

They are so transparent they have long past the point of being boring and detremental to America, our war effort, and everything else that is America...

The Iraq war resolution which THE CONGRESS APPROVED also linked Saddam Hussein and the threat posed to 9/11, in that America was not willing to sit by and watch it happen again.

Liberals always say conservatives are "not nuanced in their thinking" - ususlly when the liberal does not want to answer the substance of the argument, they just throw mud. This time, they are falling back on "Iraq did not attack us on 9/11." As I recall, Germany did not attack us on December 7, 1941 either. But the threat we face is a broad one.

The Democrat leadership has apparently chosen where to place their loyalties. Their words and actions threaten us as well.

"Iraq is now what it was not when the war began  a magnet for terrorism"

This is kind of interesting too.

No one talks about it but immediately after our 'thunder run'/'shock and awe' performance in Iraq, the Liberals, not knowing whether to s&^t or wind their watches, decided they should rein in the US and coalition activities making troops back off the tactically requisite action of consolidating our military/political advantage to that point. The media was all over THAT point like white on rice, to hammer it into our heads that the troops needed orders in triplicate to deal with looting and other civil disorder in the urban areas. SOOOOO... the 'insurgents' took advantage of the lull to organize and recruit, etc.... It MUST be admitted that the Liberals interference (along with the collusion of the MSN) precipitated a great deal of the current malaise in the urban areas in Iraq!!! Coalition and US hesitation and 'deference' to Liberals' and MSM broadcaster's time out request caused us to squander a great deal of the hard won advantage.

You know...this is exactly what they did during the first Gulf War, when we had Saddams Republican Guard on the run. The media turned the Highway of Death into an Abu Ghraib spectacle as they molded public opinion against us dealing Saddam a fatal blow. And then, these same liberals have the nerve to question why we didn't finish Saddam the first time around.

Thanks for the link. I noticed this statement from Lindsey that shows he's real bad on prophecy:

What generation? Obviously, in context, the generation that would see the signschief among them the rebirth of Israel. A generation in the Bible is something like forty years. If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948, all these things could take place. Many scholars who have studied Bible prophecy all their lives believe that this is so.

Surprisingly, though, even though I have never been a Lindsey admirer, I liked what he said in the article about the rebuilding of the Temple not to be found anywhere in the NT.

Perhaps you and DeMarr both have difficulty with reading comprehension:

From Lindsey: "Obviously, in context, the generation that would see the signschief among them the rebirth of Israel. A generation in the Bible is something like forty years. If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948, all these things could take place. Many scholars who have studied Bible prophecy all their lives believe that this is so."

It's kinda hard to put a man on trial for making a false prediction when he puts a gigantic caveat like that and then says only that it could indicate the date range in which everything will take place. Perhaps Lindsey should have been more creative with the fonts to make sure that those so eager to crucify him wouldn't miss a couple of key clauses in this passage. Perhaps those so eager to do so should learn the difference between a prediction and a speculation.

Now, you said in post #7 that Hal "keeps missing the date he prophesies the end of the world will happen..." That means that you must have multiple examples. So tell me, what other dates has Hal "predicted"?

Btw, I should point out that while I like Lindsey and Missler both (and I've had occassion to meet and converse with the latter, and I can say without reservation that he is a scholar and a gentleman), I've got grave reservations myself about Hal's tendency to compare Scripture-to-technology before he finishes comparing Scripture-to-Scripture and I disagree with him that the Rapture will be pretrib and separated from the Second Coming sequence, so don't take my response as putting me in his camp.

However, I do get tired of the false accusations thrown carelessly around by his critics. Perhaps they should concentrate on demonstrating the validity of their own beliefs instead of simply throwing mud on the opposition.

I agree, Buggman. I've heard and read Lindsey regarding the end times and related events but have never seen where he has asigned a specific date to anything. There is a big difference between saying "tomorrow at noon" and "sometime soon, it could even be tomorrow". Those that claim Lindsey as a date-setter and end times snake oil salesman have yet to provide a clear example of such errors.

Not a huge follower of Lindsey myself (I prefer Missler as well), but it irks me whenever Lindsey's name is mentioned here and he is dismissed out of hand as a quack when he raises many a good point.

Okay then. How's this grab you? Hal Lindsey has about as much inside knowledge on the workings of what was or was not in Iraq as the Pillsbury Dough Boy. The only thing he is known for is writing a book on prophesy. Please note at no point in his ramblings does he actually provide any facts supporting his thesis. Just this...

It just happens that the war is being fought in Iraq, but I suppose that is much too deep a distinction for her to grasp. Our forces aren't fighting against Iraq. Al-Qaida is fighting against Iraq. Our forces are fighting against al-Qaida in Iraq.

Opinions are now facts? He knows this how? From listening to the 'right' politician?

Lest we forget we have all the information provided on the links I've seen posted time and time again. Of course one could ask if these links were so defined, surely the President or someone in the administration would provide definitive proof. Or are they just disseminating the info through such fine upstanding 'conservative' magazines as Weekly Standard and the National Review? How clever of them.....

And yet somehow this information was dismissed over a year ago and it's relevant now again why? Because the 'right' politician alluded to a link in his speech?

Those that claim Lindsey as a date-setter and end times snake oil salesman have yet to provide a clear example of such errors.

I suppose that's why you find most of his books on websites such as Armageddon Books. From the description of the soon to be 'classic' VANISHED INTO THIN AIR

We live in a world essentially devoid of hope. Visions of the future as portrayed by popular books and films include catastrophic events like asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and plagues. Images of the future are more often than not eerie, post-apocalyptic scenes complete with darkened skies over ruined cities presided over by chaos

Those images are completely in harmony with the prophecies of the Book of the Revelation for the last days. But there is another prophecy-the promise of the Rapture of the Church. What is the Rapture? Which view is correct? What are the other views? Is the Rapture a recently developed doctrine? When will it take place? Who will go? Hal Lindsey explains in clear, easy to understand terms the answers to these and many other doctrinal issues surrounding the Rapture of the Church.

Don't think ol' Hal's going to be spending a lot of time discussing spreading of the Gospel and how we can come to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ in this barn-burner. What was that question put forth in the description? When will it take place? Guess I'd sort of have to buy the book for Hal to tell me huh?

Well .. since Pelosi is from the San Francisco district of CA - that pretty much explains it.

Dr. Dean was saying the exact same thing Pelosi was saying - and I loved Hal's retort: "Rep. Pelosi's second complaint ... is a 'magnet for terrorism because the president invaded Iraq' ... Rep. Pelosi thinks that is a bad thing for America. Where would she prefer to locate the "terrorist magnet"? New York? Washington? Los Angeles?"

In fact, just this morning I sent Rush a msg making the same comment about Dean's statement re our being a "magnet".

41
posted on 06/30/2005 11:14:09 AM PDT
by The Final Harvest
(President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")

Ah, the old, "I was proven wrong, but I don't want to admit it, so I'll just change the subject and throw more mud on the subject rather than admit it" bit.

Ranting about Hal not having "inside knowledge" is just plain dumb. Do you rant against Coulter, Steyn, Stein, or any other conservative commentator taking a liberal to task because you don't think they have "inside knowledge"?

It's also utterly irrelevant to what I posted to you.

From the description of the soon to be 'classic' VANISHED INTO THIN AIR

You have no idea how the publishing industry works, do you? The authors don't write the blurbs for their book covers; that's the publisher's (specifically, the marketer's) job. And in answer to the question, "When will it (the Rapture) happen?" I'd venture that Hal's answer amounts to, "Before the tribulation, and possibly very, very soon."

That's hardly date-setting.

Don't think ol' Hal's going to be spending a lot of time discussing spreading of the Gospel and how we can come to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ in this barn-burner.

Again, irrelevant. I could take Gary DeMarr's "anti-barn-burners" and make the same criticism. I don't expect every book written by a Christian on Scripture to dovetail directly with evangelism--indeed, when you're writing on prophecy, advanced soteriology, spiritual warfare, or whatever, many books simply assume that most of the audience is already saved and interested in evangelism, and focus on their particular subject.

I'm still waiting for you to produce evidence of all of Hal's failed predictions for the date of the Rapture. If you can't produce them, please admit that you have slandered your brother in Christ, and apologize.

Ah, the old, "I was proven wrong, but I don't want to admit it, so I'll just change the subject and throw more mud on the subject rather than admit it" bit.

LOL, but I wasn't wrong. Lindsey supposed within a few years. Honestly no one is stupid enough to say the world is going to end June 28, 2007. But that's the thing with prophesy fanatics. This happened x number of years ago so by my 'calculations' this should happen x+40...or so. Leaves himself a little wiggle room that way. And anyone calls him on it, they're somehow dishonoring a fellow Christian 'brother' for daring to doubt. From his own Late Great Planet Earth word for word

The most important sign in Matthew has to be the restoration of the Jews to the land in the rebirth of Israel. Even the figure of speech fig tree has been a historic symbol of national Israel. When the Jewish people, after nearly 2,000 years of exile, under relentless persecution, became a nation again on 14 May 1948 the fig tree put forth its first leaves. Jesus said that this would indicate that He was at the door, ready to return. Then He said, Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place (Matthew 24:34, NASB). What generation? Obviously, in context, the generation that would see the signschief among them the rebirth of Israel. A generation in the Bible is something like forty years. If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948, all these things could take place. Many scholars who have studied Bible prophecy all their lives believe that this is so.

So 'forty years or so' by his deduction. But it's nice of him to put the 'if' in there so when it doesn't happen, he can claim he may have just guessed.

I'm still waiting for you to produce evidence of all of Hal's failed predictions for the date of the Rapture. If you can't produce them, please admit that you have slandered your brother in Christ, and apologize.

I have produced just one supposition but there are more. I will not apologize to those that are for leading away from the Gospel of Christ and are more concerned with what seems a fascination with numerology and prophecy

Heh heh. Reading that column and imagining the trademark Hal Lindsay low country paranoid grumble was satisfying indeed. He is right on the money. Now that I have DVR I'm going to have to make a note to start Tivo'ing him.

It is the deference to the liberals that is the worst mistake the political and military has made in this war and it has cost the President a lot of capital. While they dither, the bad guys kill the real innocents. Witness Fallujah. They let the people live under a true reign of terror for four months longer than they should have to try every diplomatic option to avoid the use of force in which some civilians would die. When will we remember that a lightning shock attack (Blitzkreig) might result in some casualties at the moment but will save thousands over time and get the damn war over.

That's what makes me mad. Other than that, i think they're doing ok, I think we'll prevail, barring a drastic change in goobernment, but I believe it's taking much longer than it needs to ultimately because of the treacherous rats, but really because the military accommodates them.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.